In my opinion, the argument "We shouldn't do it because the person might be innocent" doesn't hold much water. You could apply that argument to any form of punishment, right down to traffic tickets. Lets take out life imprisonment as well because the person might be innocent.
Will there eventually be people who get the death penalty even though they were innocent? Probably. The same thing happens to imprisonment. It was on the news a while ago, I don't quite remember if it was here or in the UK, but a man eventually came out of jail after 30 years he was proven innocent. To me, that's mistake is nearly as bad as a mistaken death penalty.
Originally posted by Hazmal You could read between the lines. It is called due process. As a convict sentenced to death, you are alloted more appeals in a certain time period than those convicted to serve life or another specific timeframe. It costs more to run through the entire appeal process multiple times than it does to just feed and house someone.
You don't need to throw Constitutional law at me, I'm quite familiar with it. Appeals are not a Constitutional right - due process guarantees "enumerated procedural rights". There is no guarantee in the Constitution for numerous appeals.
Isn't Constitutional law interpreted? Hm. Probably a lot of reading between the lines going on there by some court, I forget the name - Super Court? No. That isn't it.
I'm in favor of the death penalty. In my opinion, the argument "We shouldn't do it because the person might be innocent" doesn't hold much water. You could apply that argument to any form of punishment, right down to traffic tickets. Lets take out life imprisonment as well because the person might be innocent.
Will there eventually be people who get the death penalty even though they were innocent? Probably. The same thing happens to imprisonment. It was on the news a while ago, I don't quite remember if it was here or in the UK, but a man eventually came out of jail after 30 years he was proven innocent. To me, that's mistake is nearly as bad as a mistaken death penalty.
This is what happens when you don't read all of the posts.
The argument of "they could be innocent" stems from the idea that, to save money, we should pull a judge dredd and execute people on the spot once convicted. That is where the human error argument plays in.
Originally posted by Hazmal You could read between the lines. It is called due process. As a convict sentenced to death, you are alloted more appeals in a certain time period than those convicted to serve life or another specific timeframe. It costs more to run through the entire appeal process multiple times than it does to just feed and house someone.
You don't need to throw Constitutional law at me, I'm quite familiar with it. Appeals are not a Constitutional right - due process guarantees "enumerated procedural rights". There is no guarantee in the Constitution for numerous appeals.
Isn't Constitutional law interpreted? Hm. Probably a lot of reading between the lines going on there by some court, I forget the name - Super Court? No. That isn't it.
The Supreme Court has not set a precedent for basing a number of allowable appeals. They grant/deny appeals on a case by case basis.
I am completely against the death penalty on all levels. Not because I don't want to see justice done for families of murder victims. I am against the death penalty for one reason. You can never 100% prove somebody is guilty. There have been so many people released from death row because new evidence or advances in technology proved they did not commit the crime.
I would rather let a million Osama Bin Ladens/Charles Mansons/Jeffery Dahmers live, than mistakenly execute one innocent person.
I'm not against killing people to defend yourself or even your propertry, and I'm not above killing others in battle or to achieve your own ends.
I am against killing people you already have contained.
In my country there is no death penalty. The death penalty is murder here. Pure and simple.
Pre-meditated cold blooded murder.
I come from a christian culture and I belive it is morally wrong to kill people. There is no moral case for murder. If you do it, you are a murderer in gods eyes and in mine.
I'm in favor of the death penalty. In my opinion, the argument "We shouldn't do it because the person might be innocent" doesn't hold much water. You could apply that argument to any form of punishment, right down to traffic tickets. Lets take out life imprisonment as well because the person might be innocent.
Will there eventually be people who get the death penalty even though they were innocent? Probably. The same thing happens to imprisonment. It was on the news a while ago, I don't quite remember if it was here or in the UK, but a man eventually came out of jail after 30 years he was proven innocent. To me, that's mistake is nearly as bad as a mistaken death penalty.
This is what happens when you don't read all of the posts.
The argument of "they could be innocent" stems from the idea that, to save money, we should pull a judge dredd and execute people on the spot once convicted. That is where the human error argument plays in.
Actually I did read all of the posts in this thread, I don't agree with your viewpoint, a concept that seems to be surprisingly difficult for you to grasp.
Originally posted by baff you are a murderer in gods eyes
You might check Leviticus for the numerous reasons for someone to be put to death. Yes, it is the Old Testament, but it is still a book revered in Christianity.
There are people who do not deserve to live in this world - those who take a life, rape or molest fall into that category. It's not logical to contain them and force others to support them to the natural end. They are no benefit to society - they are no benefit to the world. They had their chance and they screwed up.
Originally posted by baff you are a murderer in gods eyes
You might check Leviticus for the numerous reasons for someone to be put to death. Yes, it is the Old Testament, but it is still a book revered in Christianity.
There are people who do not deserve to live in this world - those who take a life, rape or molest fall into that category. It's not logical to contain them and force others to support them to the natural end. They are no benefit to society - they are no benefit to the world. They had their chance and they screwed up.
Even if you give a good reason to perform a killing that still is murder. The difference is if you are a legal murderer or an illegal one.
Many of these molestors and rapists are upstanding members of their societies and contribute a lot. They have bussineses or even support families, without their crimes being known. Thus they are a "benefit" to society and the world.
There is no justice in the capital penalty. It's only a tool of revenge from the part of the victims to their aggressors.
A friend is not him who provides support during your failures.A friend is the one that cheers you during your successes.
Originally posted by baff you are a murderer in gods eyes
You might check Leviticus for the numerous reasons for someone to be put to death. Yes, it is the Old Testament, but it is still a book revered in Christianity.
There are people who do not deserve to live in this world - those who take a life, rape or molest fall into that category. It's not logical to contain them and force others to support them to the natural end. They are no benefit to society - they are no benefit to the world. They had their chance and they screwed up.
I'm not Jewish mate, I'm Christian.
It's not logical to kill what is contained. The need is gone. Once imprisoned they are no longer molesting children and raping and killing.
The benefit letting them live has on humanity, is allowing you to keep yours.
Originally posted by baff you are a murderer in gods eyes
You might check Leviticus for the numerous reasons for someone to be put to death. Yes, it is the Old Testament, but it is still a book revered in Christianity.
There are people who do not deserve to live in this world - those who take a life, rape or molest fall into that category. It's not logical to contain them and force others to support them to the natural end. They are no benefit to society - they are no benefit to the world. They had their chance and they screwed up.
Justification of a murder is still murder. The difference is if you are a legal murderer or an illegal one.
Many of these molestors and rapists are upstanding members of their societies and contribute a lot. They have bussineses or even support families, without their crimes being known. Thus they are a "benefit" to society and the world.
There is no justice in the capital penalty. It's only a tool of revenge from the part of the victims to their aggressors.
I disagree. It is a tool of prevention. If they are put to death, they can no longer commit these crimes. Even in prison. people have been known to murder in prison, as well as run gang opertions and carry out "hits" from within prison walls. This is a final resolution. Nothing more. No one has to support them, and they will no longer be able to carry out such dispicable acts. They will no longer be able to harrass and intimidate the families of the victims or anyone who testified against them.
Often those witnesses and families live in fear that one day these people may be released and come for them. There are multiple documented cases where hits were carried out from orders from inside the prison to the witnesses. This brings closeure, they will never be a threat to these people or anyone else again. Even if there is a prison break, or a lapse in security somewhere down the road. These people no longer have to live in fear, and hopefully with counseling and time they will one day be able to rest again at night instead of living in terror.
Think of it this way, the little girl whose sister was raped mutilated and killed by one of these creeps looks up into moms eyes years later and says, " mommy is the bad guy really gone? mom can answer yes, they are really gone, and they will never come here again." and be telling their children the truth.
In my opinion, the argument "We shouldn't do it because the person might be innocent" doesn't hold much water. You could apply that argument to any form of punishment, right down to traffic tickets. Lets take out life imprisonment as well because the person might be innocent.
Will there eventually be people who get the death penalty even though they were innocent? Probably. The same thing happens to imprisonment. It was on the news a while ago, I don't quite remember if it was here or in the UK, but a man eventually came out of jail after 30 years he was proven innocent. To me, that's mistake is nearly as bad as a mistaken death penalty.
This is what happens when you don't read all of the posts.
The argument of "they could be innocent" stems from the idea that, to save money, we should pull a judge dredd and execute people on the spot once convicted. That is where the human error argument plays in.
Actually I did read all of the posts in this thread, I don't agree with your viewpoint, a concept that seems to be surprisingly difficult for you to grasp.
I have no problem with you viewpoint. My problem lies in your attempted counter to the would-be-innocence portion and how you take half of it just to make your small point. I guess I should have put, read and understood next time. My fault
Originally posted by baff you are a murderer in gods eyes
You might check Leviticus for the numerous reasons for someone to be put to death. Yes, it is the Old Testament, but it is still a book revered in Christianity.
There are people who do not deserve to live in this world - those who take a life, rape or molest fall into that category. It's not logical to contain them and force others to support them to the natural end. They are no benefit to society - they are no benefit to the world. They had their chance and they screwed up.
Justification of a murder is still murder. The difference is if you are a legal murderer or an illegal one.
Many of these molestors and rapists are upstanding members of their societies and contribute a lot. They have bussineses or even support families, without their crimes being known. Thus they are a "benefit" to society and the world.
There is no justice in the capital penalty. It's only a tool of revenge from the part of the victims to their aggressors.
I disagree. It is a tool of prevention. If they are put to death, they can no longer commit these crimes. Even in prison. people have been known to murder in prison, as well as run gang opertions and carry out "hits" from within prison walls. This is a final resolution. Nothing more. No one has to support them, and they will no longer be able to carry out such dispacable acts. They will no longer be able to harrass and intimidate the families of the victims or anyone who testified against them. Often those witnesses live in fear that one day these people may be released and come for them. There are multiple documented cases where hits were carried out from orders from inside the prison to the witnesses. This brings closeure, they will never be a threat to these people or anyone else again. Even if there is a prison break, or a lapse in security somewhere down the road. These people no longer have to live in fear, and hopefully with counseling and time they will one day be able to rest again at night instead of living in terror.
Now you are rationalising. I know why it is useful. Draconian laws after all were effective.
These people unless they are very strong willed and/or have good enviroment/family they will live in fear regardless. Just because you killed a wolf, there won't be any others?
I don't believe unless I see it with my own eyes, one victim that wanted their aggressor dead because of care of justice or to prevent further damage.And I mean in the early stages when the wound is fresh and they haven't came in terms with it. The reason to kill any of them is, as I see it ,is to appease the victim (the closure part) and to give people a false sense of security ,at least as it stands now.
Capital penalty is not just a tool. It's an act of legal murder. I don't disagree with it's usefulness but just because the end result may bring some good the act itself is one of the despicable ones the criminals perform themselves.
edit cause I just saw your edit:) The mother would still lie to her child (white lie) albeit in a protective way. Wolves will always exist no matter what. And to clarify that I am not against personally the capital punishment, just pointing out that is not something to be taken casually since it's grave in itself.
A friend is not him who provides support during your failures.A friend is the one that cheers you during your successes.
Originally posted by baff I'm not Jewish mate, I'm Christian.
It's not logical to kill what is contained. The need is gone. Once imprisoned they are no longer molesting children and raping and killing. The benefit letting them live has on humanity, is allowing you to keep yours.
I didn't assume you were Jewish - the Christian Bible contains Leviticus within the Old Testament. You cannot simply disregard it. It is canonized within Christianity.
Allowing them to live on is not humanity, it is insanity. They are a scourge and should be treated as such.
I have no problem with you viewpoint. My problem lies in your attempted counter to the would-be-innocence portion and how you take half of it just to make your small point. I guess I should have put, read and understood next time. My fault
Originally posted by Hazmal
Originally posted by Gameloading
I'm in favor of the death penalty. In my opinion, the argument "We shouldn't do it because the person might be innocent" doesn't hold much water. You could apply that argument to any form of punishment, right down to traffic tickets. Lets take out life imprisonment as well because the person might be innocent.
Will there eventually be people who get the death penalty even though they were innocent? Probably. The same thing happens to imprisonment. It was on the news a while ago, I don't quite remember if it was here or in the UK, but a man eventually came out of jail after 30 years he was proven innocent. To me, that's mistake is nearly as bad as a mistaken death penalty.
This is what happens when you don't read all of the posts.
The argument of "they could be innocent" stems from the idea that, to save money, we should pull a judge dredd and execute people on the spot once convicted. That is where the human error argument plays in.
Actually I did read all of the posts in this thread, I don't agree with your viewpoint, a concept that seems to be surprisingly difficult for you to grasp.
I didn't take "half of it", I simply never mentioned the financial costs because I think that is irrelevant to the point.
Originally posted by Sabiancym There is no way a jury can ever be 100% sure someon is guilty. Not possible, not worth the risk.
I call BS on that there are ways to be 100% sure. For example, the police walk in and the guy is stabbing the victim, the guy that decapitated and gutted that kid on the bus? I mean seriously there are ways to be 100% sure. Ever heard of video evidence? what about DNA? Yes, there are ways to prove 100% that someone commited the crime in this day and age, we are not living in the dark ages ...
Video can be edited, DNA can be transferred, cops can be dirty.
Any logical person would assume the person in that scenario is guilty yes, but there is always that minute chance that every card went the wrong way for that guy. That tiny chance is enough to eliminate the death penalty in my opinion.
This relates to a fundamental difference I often have with several members of the forums.
I can't put a cash value of an innocent man. If you have a method with 0 error, then I would be all for it. But if 1 in 100,000 people who die are innocent I find that unacceptable.
I don't believe it is a drain on society to save a life. The standard of life is higher than ever, and its been proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that past enough money to pay your rent eat your food and cloth yourself, their is no correlation between income and happyness. Thats not a dream ideal, thats a solid, statistical fact.
So even if you are a person who would put a cash price on an innocent life, looking at the happiness gains from having the death penalty, you would have to create a cost difference that would effect the taxes of somebody below the poverty level. To accomplish this, wehave to save such a ludicrous amount of money we'd have to be selling the corpses.
after 6 or so years, I had to change it a little...
I am against the death penalty, not because of the whole "we can never be sure" thing but because I don't like the government, or by extension 12 people, having the power to kill who it deems deserving, I am sure the the guy in prison for murder thought the people he killed deserved it too. I guess it comes down to who has more force to back it up :P
And if you are worried about cost why not institute labor camps for the prisoners, where they are forced to make cheap goods and do manual labor for no pay, you could consider it a punishment for the crime or repayment to society for the shelter and food, whichever one you feel satisfies your sense of justice.
Don't you worry little buddy. You're dealing with a man of honor. However, honor requires a higher percentage of profit
Im against it, mainly because innocent people can and have been put to death, and then later it turns out they were innocent all along. Can't say sorry to something irreverisble like that.
Also alot of people don't know, but the death penalty is alot more expensive than life in prison. We're talking double, or even triple what it costs in some cases, due to the number of trials that are held over these cases, the number of appeals, and then 20++ years held in prison before they can execute. Most likely a person will die of natural causes long before they are executed.
Also I can't recall where I read about this one, but apparently states that uphold the DP happen to have a higher criminal/murder rate than compared to those that dont. Texas, which supports the DP, happens to have twice the murder rate than compared to I believe it was Wisconsin, which does not have the DP. Theirs more to those statistics which I cannot recall, but basically the DP is not anymore effective at ending crime than alternative sentences.
Then theirs the issue of having a fair trial, many people are given crap court appointed lawyers that aren't even getting paid enough to defend you, and thus people aren't exactly getting a fair defense in the face of death. This leads to problem of innocent people getting sentenced to death.
The DP also violates the the UN's Humans rights Laws, which states that every individual has protection from deprivation of life, and that no one is to be subjected to cruel or degrading punishment.
Supposedly over two thirds of the world has abolished the death penalty, I don't understand why some of us, especially the US, are still holding onto old and obviously uneffective practices like the death penalty.
edit: I kind of wish they would make executions required viewing for Americans, so people could really see the effects of Lethal injection and electrocution. Its alot more inhumane than it sounds, including lethal injection if you've ever seen what it does to the body.
The DP also violates the the UN's Humans rights Laws, which states that every individual has protection from deprivation of life, and that no one is to be subjected to cruel or degrading punishment.
What's your point? The U.N. isn't the ruling body of our land. The U.N. is an organization full of corrupt imbeciles. The building should be flattened, the staff should be tossed on their asses and the U.S. should withdraw.
The DP also violates the the UN's Humans rights Laws, which states that every individual has protection from deprivation of life, and that no one is to be subjected to cruel or degrading punishment.
What's your point? The U.N. isn't the ruling body of our land. The U.N. is an organization full of corrupt imbeciles. The building should be flattened, the staff should be tossed on their asses and the U.S. should withdraw.
My point is exactly what I said, we are violating an agreement we made, regardless of whatever your opinion is on the UN.
If we withdraw from the UN, then it's a different story, but seeing as how we haven't, and don't appear to have any plans to do so, we have agreements we promised to follow through with.
The DP also violates the the UN's Humans rights Laws, which states that every individual has protection from deprivation of life, and that no one is to be subjected to cruel or degrading punishment.
What's your point? The U.N. isn't the ruling body of our land. The U.N. is an organization full of corrupt imbeciles. The building should be flattened, the staff should be tossed on their asses and the U.S. should withdraw.
My point is exactly what I said, we are violating an agreement we made, regardless of whatever your opinion is on the UN.
If we withdraw from the UN, then it's a different story, but seeing as how we haven't, and don't appear to have any plans to do so, we have agreements we promised to follow through with.
It would be unconstitutional for Any state to be ruled by any orders from the UN. We rule ourselves.. Our government does not have the authority to turn over states power .. sorry Our government does not work that way. Any official that attempted to put us under UN rule would be guilty of treason and would by law no longer be holding their office, and would be in no position to tell anyone to do anything. You see contrary to what some may think in this country the laws prevent " mob rule" "majority rule" or any tyranical rule of any kind. Everyone is equal so it is not anyones place to tell others how to live.
The DP also violates the the UN's Humans rights Laws, which states that every individual has protection from deprivation of life, and that no one is to be subjected to cruel or degrading punishment.
What's your point? The U.N. isn't the ruling body of our land. The U.N. is an organization full of corrupt imbeciles. The building should be flattened, the staff should be tossed on their asses and the U.S. should withdraw.
My point is exactly what I said, we are violating an agreement we made, regardless of whatever your opinion is on the UN.
If we withdraw from the UN, then it's a different story, but seeing as how we haven't, and don't appear to have any plans to do so, we have agreements we promised to follow through with.
It would be unconstitutional for Any state to be ruled by any orders from the UN. We rule ourselves.. Our government does not have the authority to turn over states power .. sorry Our government does not work that way. Any official that attempted to put us under UN rule would be guilty of treason and would by law no longer be holding their office, and would be in no position to tell anyone to do anything. You see contrary to what some may think in this country the laws prevent " mob rule" "majority rule" or any tyranical rule of any kind. Everyone is equal so it is not anyones place to tell others how to live.
Of course the UN cannot physically do anything about the fact that we violate the UDHR, and if they could they probably would have a long time ago on this issue. They best they can do is plead.
I was never saying they have any rule over what we do here, but that doesn't change the fact that we are violating the UDHR that our country supposedly supports.
Apparently according to you we don't or shouldn't support the UDHR. Lets start taking away rights from the people shall we?
When there is no doubt, a rope or a bullet is much cheaper and the world is better off without that "person". If an intruder breaks into a house and gets caught in the house by the cops with a gun standing over the body of the owner, he's guilty, NO appeal. Thats why I'm glad I live in FL now=) Intruders now have no rights which is fantastic. If a bank gets robbed and on video with 30 witnesses in the room, you see a gaurd or teller get shot, he's guilty, NO appeal. If a kid stabs someone to death for no apparent reason on a schoolbus in front of 20 other people, the kid is guilty, NO appeal. If you're driving the wrong direction down the highway DRUNK and kill someone in a head on collision, there is NO appeal, you're GUILTY! Or you rear-end someone at a stoplight and you're DRUNK at 6am...you're GUILTY. An intruder rapes your wife and kills her in front of you and the cops bust in...the intruder is GUILTY!!! A person actually admits to a rape or murder, he's GUILTY. He's not insane. He just needs to die. Execute him.
Tax payers shouldn't keep certain people alive living in jail BETTER than some people who live under a bridge starving.
Weak minded people try to find innocence in pure absolutes or feel pity for the guilty. Certain crimes are absolutes. The death penalty is also absolute and shouldn't be questioned when the guilt is unquestionable. WHen theres no doubt, theres no doubt and there are plenty of situations where this is true. If there is doubt, than theres jail time. Otherwise, in the words of HoneyBunny, "EXECUUUUTE HIM!"
Sorry, this isn't the movies regarding faking video=) Theres only so much editing or special effects that can be done. Its quite easy to spot. I've been doing it for 15+ years.
I support the self defense rule and the death penalty.
If i come home and find anyone in my home that has no legal right to be there, I am going to assume they are there to kill me and/or my family and take what is my hard earned belongings. I will pull out my model 19 and put every single bullet from the clip into their body any way i can. I will sleep very well that night too.
If i am on a jury, and there is evidence that puts a person at the scene of a murder beyond my doubt...I will vote to have that person put to death, and sleep very well that night.
What shocks the most however, and I see how the only other person to bring this up was silenced... is that the SAME people (typically) that are for that 1 in 1million chance of a person being not guilty and wrongfully put to death will support the exact opposite regarding abortion. I call BULL SHIT on all your logic and reason on that one. I know very few libs that are LIBERAL and against abortion.
TORT REFORM will fix the problem we have with 20 years of appeals before they get the needle. But try and get a lib to even act like they know those words exist, never gonna happen with a liberal in control of all 3 branches of government. They want more and more appeals and lawsuits.
Comments
I'm in favor of the death penalty.
In my opinion, the argument "We shouldn't do it because the person might be innocent" doesn't hold much water. You could apply that argument to any form of punishment, right down to traffic tickets. Lets take out life imprisonment as well because the person might be innocent.
Will there eventually be people who get the death penalty even though they were innocent? Probably. The same thing happens to imprisonment. It was on the news a while ago, I don't quite remember if it was here or in the UK, but a man eventually came out of jail after 30 years he was proven innocent. To me, that's mistake is nearly as bad as a mistaken death penalty.
You don't need to throw Constitutional law at me, I'm quite familiar with it. Appeals are not a Constitutional right - due process guarantees "enumerated procedural rights". There is no guarantee in the Constitution for numerous appeals.
Isn't Constitutional law interpreted? Hm. Probably a lot of reading between the lines going on there by some court, I forget the name - Super Court? No. That isn't it.
------------------
Originally posted by javac
well i'm 35 and have a PhD in science, and then 10 years experience in bioinformatics... you?
http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/218865/page/8
This is what happens when you don't read all of the posts.
The argument of "they could be innocent" stems from the idea that, to save money, we should pull a judge dredd and execute people on the spot once convicted. That is where the human error argument plays in.
------------------
Originally posted by javac
well i'm 35 and have a PhD in science, and then 10 years experience in bioinformatics... you?
http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/218865/page/8
You don't need to throw Constitutional law at me, I'm quite familiar with it. Appeals are not a Constitutional right - due process guarantees "enumerated procedural rights". There is no guarantee in the Constitution for numerous appeals.
Isn't Constitutional law interpreted? Hm. Probably a lot of reading between the lines going on there by some court, I forget the name - Super Court? No. That isn't it.
The Supreme Court has not set a precedent for basing a number of allowable appeals. They grant/deny appeals on a case by case basis.
I'm not against killing people to defend yourself or even your propertry, and I'm not above killing others in battle or to achieve your own ends.
I am against killing people you already have contained.
In my country there is no death penalty. The death penalty is murder here. Pure and simple.
Pre-meditated cold blooded murder.
I come from a christian culture and I belive it is morally wrong to kill people. There is no moral case for murder. If you do it, you are a murderer in gods eyes and in mine.
This is what happens when you don't read all of the posts.
The argument of "they could be innocent" stems from the idea that, to save money, we should pull a judge dredd and execute people on the spot once convicted. That is where the human error argument plays in.
Actually I did read all of the posts in this thread, I don't agree with your viewpoint, a concept that seems to be surprisingly difficult for you to grasp.
You might check Leviticus for the numerous reasons for someone to be put to death. Yes, it is the Old Testament, but it is still a book revered in Christianity.
There are people who do not deserve to live in this world - those who take a life, rape or molest fall into that category. It's not logical to contain them and force others to support them to the natural end. They are no benefit to society - they are no benefit to the world. They had their chance and they screwed up.
The bible seems to have no problem with rape.
http://www.evilbible.com/Rape.htm
The Official God FAQ
You might check Leviticus for the numerous reasons for someone to be put to death. Yes, it is the Old Testament, but it is still a book revered in Christianity.
There are people who do not deserve to live in this world - those who take a life, rape or molest fall into that category. It's not logical to contain them and force others to support them to the natural end. They are no benefit to society - they are no benefit to the world. They had their chance and they screwed up.
Even if you give a good reason to perform a killing that still is murder. The difference is if you are a legal murderer or an illegal one.
Many of these molestors and rapists are upstanding members of their societies and contribute a lot. They have bussineses or even support families, without their crimes being known. Thus they are a "benefit" to society and the world.
There is no justice in the capital penalty. It's only a tool of revenge from the part of the victims to their aggressors.
A friend is not him who provides support during your failures.A friend is the one that cheers you during your successes.
You might check Leviticus for the numerous reasons for someone to be put to death. Yes, it is the Old Testament, but it is still a book revered in Christianity.
There are people who do not deserve to live in this world - those who take a life, rape or molest fall into that category. It's not logical to contain them and force others to support them to the natural end. They are no benefit to society - they are no benefit to the world. They had their chance and they screwed up.
I'm not Jewish mate, I'm Christian.
It's not logical to kill what is contained. The need is gone. Once imprisoned they are no longer molesting children and raping and killing.
The benefit letting them live has on humanity, is allowing you to keep yours.
You might check Leviticus for the numerous reasons for someone to be put to death. Yes, it is the Old Testament, but it is still a book revered in Christianity.
There are people who do not deserve to live in this world - those who take a life, rape or molest fall into that category. It's not logical to contain them and force others to support them to the natural end. They are no benefit to society - they are no benefit to the world. They had their chance and they screwed up.
Justification of a murder is still murder. The difference is if you are a legal murderer or an illegal one.
Many of these molestors and rapists are upstanding members of their societies and contribute a lot. They have bussineses or even support families, without their crimes being known. Thus they are a "benefit" to society and the world.
There is no justice in the capital penalty. It's only a tool of revenge from the part of the victims to their aggressors.
I disagree. It is a tool of prevention. If they are put to death, they can no longer commit these crimes. Even in prison. people have been known to murder in prison, as well as run gang opertions and carry out "hits" from within prison walls. This is a final resolution. Nothing more. No one has to support them, and they will no longer be able to carry out such dispicable acts. They will no longer be able to harrass and intimidate the families of the victims or anyone who testified against them.
Often those witnesses and families live in fear that one day these people may be released and come for them. There are multiple documented cases where hits were carried out from orders from inside the prison to the witnesses. This brings closeure, they will never be a threat to these people or anyone else again. Even if there is a prison break, or a lapse in security somewhere down the road. These people no longer have to live in fear, and hopefully with counseling and time they will one day be able to rest again at night instead of living in terror.
Think of it this way, the little girl whose sister was raped mutilated and killed by one of these creeps looks up into moms eyes years later and says, " mommy is the bad guy really gone? mom can answer yes, they are really gone, and they will never come here again." and be telling their children the truth.
Originally posted by Gameloading
Originally posted by Hazmal
Originally posted by Gameloading
I'm in favor of the death penalty.
In my opinion, the argument "We shouldn't do it because the person might be innocent" doesn't hold much water. You could apply that argument to any form of punishment, right down to traffic tickets. Lets take out life imprisonment as well because the person might be innocent.
Will there eventually be people who get the death penalty even though they were innocent? Probably. The same thing happens to imprisonment. It was on the news a while ago, I don't quite remember if it was here or in the UK, but a man eventually came out of jail after 30 years he was proven innocent. To me, that's mistake is nearly as bad as a mistaken death penalty.
This is what happens when you don't read all of the posts.
The argument of "they could be innocent" stems from the idea that, to save money, we should pull a judge dredd and execute people on the spot once convicted. That is where the human error argument plays in.
Actually I did read all of the posts in this thread, I don't agree with your viewpoint, a concept that seems to be surprisingly difficult for you to grasp.
I have no problem with you viewpoint. My problem lies in your attempted counter to the would-be-innocence portion and how you take half of it just to make your small point. I guess I should have put, read and understood next time. My fault
------------------
Originally posted by javac
well i'm 35 and have a PhD in science, and then 10 years experience in bioinformatics... you?
http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/218865/page/8
You might check Leviticus for the numerous reasons for someone to be put to death. Yes, it is the Old Testament, but it is still a book revered in Christianity.
There are people who do not deserve to live in this world - those who take a life, rape or molest fall into that category. It's not logical to contain them and force others to support them to the natural end. They are no benefit to society - they are no benefit to the world. They had their chance and they screwed up.
Justification of a murder is still murder. The difference is if you are a legal murderer or an illegal one.
Many of these molestors and rapists are upstanding members of their societies and contribute a lot. They have bussineses or even support families, without their crimes being known. Thus they are a "benefit" to society and the world.
There is no justice in the capital penalty. It's only a tool of revenge from the part of the victims to their aggressors.
I disagree. It is a tool of prevention. If they are put to death, they can no longer commit these crimes. Even in prison. people have been known to murder in prison, as well as run gang opertions and carry out "hits" from within prison walls. This is a final resolution. Nothing more. No one has to support them, and they will no longer be able to carry out such dispacable acts. They will no longer be able to harrass and intimidate the families of the victims or anyone who testified against them. Often those witnesses live in fear that one day these people may be released and come for them. There are multiple documented cases where hits were carried out from orders from inside the prison to the witnesses. This brings closeure, they will never be a threat to these people or anyone else again. Even if there is a prison break, or a lapse in security somewhere down the road. These people no longer have to live in fear, and hopefully with counseling and time they will one day be able to rest again at night instead of living in terror.
Now you are rationalising. I know why it is useful. Draconian laws after all were effective.
These people unless they are very strong willed and/or have good enviroment/family they will live in fear regardless. Just because you killed a wolf, there won't be any others?
I don't believe unless I see it with my own eyes, one victim that wanted their aggressor dead because of care of justice or to prevent further damage.And I mean in the early stages when the wound is fresh and they haven't came in terms with it. The reason to kill any of them is, as I see it ,is to appease the victim (the closure part) and to give people a false sense of security ,at least as it stands now.
Capital penalty is not just a tool. It's an act of legal murder. I don't disagree with it's usefulness but just because the end result may bring some good the act itself is one of the despicable ones the criminals perform themselves.
edit cause I just saw your edit:) The mother would still lie to her child (white lie) albeit in a protective way. Wolves will always exist no matter what. And to clarify that I am not against personally the capital punishment, just pointing out that is not something to be taken casually since it's grave in itself.
A friend is not him who provides support during your failures.A friend is the one that cheers you during your successes.
I didn't assume you were Jewish - the Christian Bible contains Leviticus within the Old Testament. You cannot simply disregard it. It is canonized within Christianity.
Allowing them to live on is not humanity, it is insanity. They are a scourge and should be treated as such.
This is what happens when you don't read all of the posts.
The argument of "they could be innocent" stems from the idea that, to save money, we should pull a judge dredd and execute people on the spot once convicted. That is where the human error argument plays in.
Actually I did read all of the posts in this thread, I don't agree with your viewpoint, a concept that seems to be surprisingly difficult for you to grasp.
I didn't take "half of it", I simply never mentioned the financial costs because I think that is irrelevant to the point.
I call BS on that there are ways to be 100% sure. For example, the police walk in and the guy is stabbing the victim, the guy that decapitated and gutted that kid on the bus? I mean seriously there are ways to be 100% sure. Ever heard of video evidence? what about DNA? Yes, there are ways to prove 100% that someone commited the crime in this day and age, we are not living in the dark ages ...
Video can be edited, DNA can be transferred, cops can be dirty.
Any logical person would assume the person in that scenario is guilty yes, but there is always that minute chance that every card went the wrong way for that guy. That tiny chance is enough to eliminate the death penalty in my opinion.
This relates to a fundamental difference I often have with several members of the forums.
I can't put a cash value of an innocent man. If you have a method with 0 error, then I would be all for it. But if 1 in 100,000 people who die are innocent I find that unacceptable.
I don't believe it is a drain on society to save a life. The standard of life is higher than ever, and its been proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that past enough money to pay your rent eat your food and cloth yourself, their is no correlation between income and happyness. Thats not a dream ideal, thats a solid, statistical fact.
So even if you are a person who would put a cash price on an innocent life, looking at the happiness gains from having the death penalty, you would have to create a cost difference that would effect the taxes of somebody below the poverty level. To accomplish this, wehave to save such a ludicrous amount of money we'd have to be selling the corpses.
after 6 or so years, I had to change it a little...
I am against the death penalty, not because of the whole "we can never be sure" thing but because I don't like the government, or by extension 12 people, having the power to kill who it deems deserving, I am sure the the guy in prison for murder thought the people he killed deserved it too. I guess it comes down to who has more force to back it up :P
And if you are worried about cost why not institute labor camps for the prisoners, where they are forced to make cheap goods and do manual labor for no pay, you could consider it a punishment for the crime or repayment to society for the shelter and food, whichever one you feel satisfies your sense of justice.
Don't you worry little buddy. You're dealing with a man of honor. However, honor requires a higher percentage of profit
Im against it, mainly because innocent people can and have been put to death, and then later it turns out they were innocent all along. Can't say sorry to something irreverisble like that.
Also alot of people don't know, but the death penalty is alot more expensive than life in prison. We're talking double, or even triple what it costs in some cases, due to the number of trials that are held over these cases, the number of appeals, and then 20++ years held in prison before they can execute. Most likely a person will die of natural causes long before they are executed.
Also I can't recall where I read about this one, but apparently states that uphold the DP happen to have a higher criminal/murder rate than compared to those that dont. Texas, which supports the DP, happens to have twice the murder rate than compared to I believe it was Wisconsin, which does not have the DP. Theirs more to those statistics which I cannot recall, but basically the DP is not anymore effective at ending crime than alternative sentences.
Then theirs the issue of having a fair trial, many people are given crap court appointed lawyers that aren't even getting paid enough to defend you, and thus people aren't exactly getting a fair defense in the face of death. This leads to problem of innocent people getting sentenced to death.
The DP also violates the the UN's Humans rights Laws, which states that every individual has protection from deprivation of life, and that no one is to be subjected to cruel or degrading punishment.
Supposedly over two thirds of the world has abolished the death penalty, I don't understand why some of us, especially the US, are still holding onto old and obviously uneffective practices like the death penalty.
edit: I kind of wish they would make executions required viewing for Americans, so people could really see the effects of Lethal injection and electrocution. Its alot more inhumane than it sounds, including lethal injection if you've ever seen what it does to the body.
What's your point? The U.N. isn't the ruling body of our land. The U.N. is an organization full of corrupt imbeciles. The building should be flattened, the staff should be tossed on their asses and the U.S. should withdraw.
What's your point? The U.N. isn't the ruling body of our land. The U.N. is an organization full of corrupt imbeciles. The building should be flattened, the staff should be tossed on their asses and the U.S. should withdraw.
My point is exactly what I said, we are violating an agreement we made, regardless of whatever your opinion is on the UN.
If we withdraw from the UN, then it's a different story, but seeing as how we haven't, and don't appear to have any plans to do so, we have agreements we promised to follow through with.
What's your point? The U.N. isn't the ruling body of our land. The U.N. is an organization full of corrupt imbeciles. The building should be flattened, the staff should be tossed on their asses and the U.S. should withdraw.
My point is exactly what I said, we are violating an agreement we made, regardless of whatever your opinion is on the UN.
If we withdraw from the UN, then it's a different story, but seeing as how we haven't, and don't appear to have any plans to do so, we have agreements we promised to follow through with.
It would be unconstitutional for Any state to be ruled by any orders from the UN. We rule ourselves.. Our government does not have the authority to turn over states power .. sorry Our government does not work that way. Any official that attempted to put us under UN rule would be guilty of treason and would by law no longer be holding their office, and would be in no position to tell anyone to do anything. You see contrary to what some may think in this country the laws prevent " mob rule" "majority rule" or any tyranical rule of any kind. Everyone is equal so it is not anyones place to tell others how to live.
What's your point? The U.N. isn't the ruling body of our land. The U.N. is an organization full of corrupt imbeciles. The building should be flattened, the staff should be tossed on their asses and the U.S. should withdraw.
My point is exactly what I said, we are violating an agreement we made, regardless of whatever your opinion is on the UN.
If we withdraw from the UN, then it's a different story, but seeing as how we haven't, and don't appear to have any plans to do so, we have agreements we promised to follow through with.
It would be unconstitutional for Any state to be ruled by any orders from the UN. We rule ourselves.. Our government does not have the authority to turn over states power .. sorry Our government does not work that way. Any official that attempted to put us under UN rule would be guilty of treason and would by law no longer be holding their office, and would be in no position to tell anyone to do anything. You see contrary to what some may think in this country the laws prevent " mob rule" "majority rule" or any tyranical rule of any kind. Everyone is equal so it is not anyones place to tell others how to live.
Of course the UN cannot physically do anything about the fact that we violate the UDHR, and if they could they probably would have a long time ago on this issue. They best they can do is plead.
I was never saying they have any rule over what we do here, but that doesn't change the fact that we are violating the UDHR that our country supposedly supports.
Apparently according to you we don't or shouldn't support the UDHR. Lets start taking away rights from the people shall we?
When there is no doubt, a rope or a bullet is much cheaper and the world is better off without that "person". If an intruder breaks into a house and gets caught in the house by the cops with a gun standing over the body of the owner, he's guilty, NO appeal. Thats why I'm glad I live in FL now=) Intruders now have no rights which is fantastic. If a bank gets robbed and on video with 30 witnesses in the room, you see a gaurd or teller get shot, he's guilty, NO appeal. If a kid stabs someone to death for no apparent reason on a schoolbus in front of 20 other people, the kid is guilty, NO appeal. If you're driving the wrong direction down the highway DRUNK and kill someone in a head on collision, there is NO appeal, you're GUILTY! Or you rear-end someone at a stoplight and you're DRUNK at 6am...you're GUILTY. An intruder rapes your wife and kills her in front of you and the cops bust in...the intruder is GUILTY!!! A person actually admits to a rape or murder, he's GUILTY. He's not insane. He just needs to die. Execute him.
Tax payers shouldn't keep certain people alive living in jail BETTER than some people who live under a bridge starving.
Weak minded people try to find innocence in pure absolutes or feel pity for the guilty. Certain crimes are absolutes. The death penalty is also absolute and shouldn't be questioned when the guilt is unquestionable. WHen theres no doubt, theres no doubt and there are plenty of situations where this is true. If there is doubt, than theres jail time. Otherwise, in the words of HoneyBunny, "EXECUUUUTE HIM!"
Sorry, this isn't the movies regarding faking video=) Theres only so much editing or special effects that can be done. Its quite easy to spot. I've been doing it for 15+ years.
i 100% agree with death penalty. Since the moment they decided to commit a crime, they should have acknowledged the punishment.
I support the self defense rule and the death penalty.
If i come home and find anyone in my home that has no legal right to be there, I am going to assume they are there to kill me and/or my family and take what is my hard earned belongings. I will pull out my model 19 and put every single bullet from the clip into their body any way i can. I will sleep very well that night too.
If i am on a jury, and there is evidence that puts a person at the scene of a murder beyond my doubt...I will vote to have that person put to death, and sleep very well that night.
What shocks the most however, and I see how the only other person to bring this up was silenced... is that the SAME people (typically) that are for that 1 in 1million chance of a person being not guilty and wrongfully put to death will support the exact opposite regarding abortion. I call BULL SHIT on all your logic and reason on that one. I know very few libs that are LIBERAL and against abortion.
TORT REFORM will fix the problem we have with 20 years of appeals before they get the needle. But try and get a lib to even act like they know those words exist, never gonna happen with a liberal in control of all 3 branches of government. They want more and more appeals and lawsuits.